LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 817
1 members and 816 guests
Hank Chinaski
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 03-25-2005, 04:16 PM   #11
Diane_Keaton
Registered User
 
Diane_Keaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: In Spheres, Scissoring Heather Locklear
Posts: 1,687
Shame on You

Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Last I heard, in order to not be married anymore you have to either get divorced or one of the parties has to die. Neither has happened in this case, and in fact that Catholic religion of hers that they keep citing would prevent divorce. There are thousands of marriage arrangements out there and I know a lot of Catholics in holding pattern relationships waiting for a (non persistent vegetative state) spouse to die before tying the knot. There has been NO evidence that the marital bonds in this case have been broken, notwithstanding other relationships.
Who said the marriage had been broken? Who is disputing that the marriage is intact? The point is that not everyone who views the situation as a potential conflict is disrespecting the sanctity of the marriage. After 15 years and two kids with a new woman, how DARE anyone take that into account when voicing their opinion on the issue. No conflict of interest would even be possible here, right, because the marriage wasn't dissolved in a divorce? Anyone who questions whether the new arrangement is unduly coloring the decision is retarded?
Diane_Keaton is offline  
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:10 AM.